Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being Anticipated by Hackett et al. (US 20040091347 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hackett discloses:
A lift arm assembly (66 & 68) comprising:
a frame (30);
a base (72), pivotally attached to the frame about a substantially horizontal axis (73) (Fig. 2 & Fig. 7 & Fig. 8);
a first actuator (74) directly attached at a first end to the base (102) and at a second end to the frame (100) (Fig. 2 & Fig. 7 & Fig. 8);
a loader arm (76) pivotally attached to the base about a substantially horizontal axis (79) (Fig. 2 & Fig. 7 & Fig. 8); and
a second actuator (78) attached (116) at a first end to the loader arm (Fig. 2 & Fig. 7 & Fig. 8), configured to pivot the loader arm relative to the base (Fig. 2 & Fig. 7 & Fig. 8) [0046 & 0048].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hackett et al. (US 20040091347 A1) in view of Sewell (US 20070132204 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Hackett teaches:
a vehicle (Fig. 2 & Fig. 7 & Fig. 8), comprising:
the frame (2) comprising a first ground engaging member (172);
the lift arm assembly of claim 1 [see rejection of Claim 1 above], pivotally attached to the frame wherein the frame comprises a second ground engaging member (172) (Fig. 2 & Fig. 7 & Fig. 8).
Hackett does not teach:
the vehicle is an articulated vehicle
an articulation joint disposed on the main frame; and
the lift arm assembly pivotally attached to the main frame through the articulation joint.
Sewell teaches:
an articulated vehicle (10), comprising:
a main frame (12) comprising a first ground engaging member (24);
an articulation joint (14 & 32) [0039] disposed on the main frame (Fig. 1 & Fig. 3 & Fig. 4 & Fig. 9 & Fig. 14) [0039]; and
lift arm assembly (16 & 64 & 84) comprising:
a frame (16);
a base (64), attached to the frame (Fig. 9 & Fig. 14);
a first actuator (2000) directly attached at a first end to the base and at a second end to the frame (Fig. 9);
a loader arm (84) pivotally attached to the base about a substantially horizontal axis (Fig. 9 & Fig. 14); and
an actuator (2000) attached at a first end to the loader arm (Fig. 9), configured to pivot the loader arm relative to the base (Fig. 9 & Fig. 14) [0046 & 0048].
the lift arm assembly pivotally attached to the main frame through the articulation joint (Fig. 9 & Fig. 14) wherein the frame of the lift arm assembly comprises a second ground engaging member (40) (Fig. 9 & Fig. 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work vehicle supporting a lift arm assembly taught by Hackett with the articulated work vehicle supporting having a main frame and an articulation joint disposed on the main frame and a lift arm assembly pivotally attached to the main frame through the articulation joint articulated work vehicle frame taught by Sewell in order to provide a work vehicle having a reduced turning radius to increase the versatility of the work vehicle.
Regarding Claim 5, Hackett teaches:
the frame is configured for an operator (19) [0038 & 0051 & 0053 & 0060].
Hackett does not explicitly teach:
the main frame is configured for a standing operator.
Sewell teaches:
the main frame is configured for a standing operator (22 & 46) [0021 & 0025 & 0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work vehicle supporting a lift arm assembly, the frame is configured for an operator taught by Hackett with the articulated work vehicle supporting having a main frame and an articulation joint disposed on the main frame and a lift arm assembly pivotally attached to the main frame through the articulation joint articulated work vehicle frame, the main frame is configured for a standing operator taught by Sewell in order to provide a work vehicle having a reduced turning radius to increase the versatility of the work vehicle.
Regarding Claim 6, Hackett teaches:
a tool (80 & 84) disposed on the loader arm (Fig. 2 & Fig. 7 & Fig. 8); and
a third actuator (82) attached at a first end to the loader arm and at a second end to the tool (Fig. 2 & Fig. 7 & Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 8, Hackett teaches:
the tool comprises a bucket (140) (Fig. 2 & Fig. 7 & Fig. 8) [0051 & 0052].
Regarding Claim 9, Hackett teaches:
a work vehicle (10), comprising:
a mainframe (30), configured for operator operation (19) [0038 & 0051 & 0053 & 0060];
the mainframe having a plurality of ground-contacting drive members (172);
a base (72), pivotally attached to the mainframe about a first axis (73) (Fig. 2 & Fig. 7 & Fig. 8), wherein the first axis is substantially horizontal (Fig. 2 & Fig. 7 & Fig. 8); and
a loader arm (76), pivotally attached to the base about a second axis (79) (Fig. 2 & Fig. 7 & Fig. 8), wherein the second axis is substantially horizontal (Fig. 2 & Fig. 7 & Fig. 8).
Hackett does not teach:
a mainframe, configured for standing operation;
an articulation joint attached to the mainframe;
a front assembly (6) pivotally attached to the mainframe by the articulation joint (Fig. 3 & Fig. 8).
Sewell teaches:
a work vehicle (10), comprising:
a mainframe (12), configured for standing operation (22 & 46) [0021 & 0025 & 0028] and having at least one ground-engaging wheel (24);
an articulation joint (14 & 32) [0039] attached to the mainframe (Fig. 1 & Fig. 3 & Fig. 4 & Fig. 9 & Fig. 14) [0039];
a front assembly (16 & 64 & 84) pivotally attached to the mainframe by the articulation joint (Fig. 1 & Fig. 3 & Fig. 4 & Fig. 9 & Fig. 14) [0039] and comprising:
a frame having a plurality of ground-contacting drive members (40);
a base (64), attached to the frame (13) (Fig. 3 & Fig. 8); and
a loader arm (84), pivotally attached to the base about a second axis (Fig. 9 & Fig. 14), wherein the second axis is substantially horizontal (Fig. 9 & Fig. 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work vehicle supporting a lift arm assembly taught by Hackett with the articulated work vehicle supporting having a main frame and an articulation joint disposed on the main frame and a front assembly (6) pivotally attached to the mainframe by the articulation joint taught by Sewell in order to provide a work vehicle having a reduced turning radius to increase the versatility of the work vehicle.
Regarding Claim 10, Hackett teaches:
a first actuator (74) disposed between the frame (100) and the base (102) (Fig. 2 & Fig. 7 & Fig. 8); and
a second actuator (78) configured to pivot the loader arm about the second axis (Fig. 2 & Fig. 7 & Fig. 8) [0046 & 0048].
Regarding Claim 11, Hackett teaches:
the second actuator is disposed between the base and the loader arm (Fig. 2 & Fig. 7 & Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 12, Hackett teaches:
the second axis is disposed closer to the mainframe than the first axis (Fig. 2 & Fig. 7 & Fig. 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 7, 13, 14, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The art of record fails to render obvious the claimed combination of: “A lift arm assembly comprising: a frame; a base, pivotally attached to the frame about a substantially horizontal axis; a first actuator directly attached at a first end to the base and at a second end to the frame; a loader arm pivotally attached to the base about a substantially horizontal axis; a second actuator attached at a first end to the loader arm, configured to pivot the loader arm relative to the base; and a bell crank attached at a center position to the base, and at a distal position to the second actuator at a second end of the second actuator.”, as recited in Claim 2 specifically:
the structural and operative relationship between the frame, base, first actuator, loader arm, second actuator, and bell crank. Especially as it relates to the relationship between the frame, base, first actuator, loader arm, second actuator, and bell crank.
The art of record fails to render obvious the claimed combination of: “A lift arm assembly comprising: a frame; a base, pivotally attached to the frame about a substantially horizontal axis; a first actuator directly attached at a first end to the base and at a second end to the frame; a loader arm pivotally attached to the base about a substantially horizontal axis; a second actuator attached at a first end to the loader arm, configured to pivot the loader arm relative to the base; a tool disposed on the loader arm; and a third actuator attached at a first end to the loader arm and at a second end to the tool; a bell crank attached at a center position to the base and at a distal position to the second actuator at a second end of the second actuator; a tilt member, attached at a first end to the bell crank at the distal position; a leveling mechanism, pivotally attached to the loader arm and having a first end and a second end; wherein: the first end is attached to the tilt member; and the second end is attached to the third actuator.”, as recited in Claim 7 specifically:
the structural and operative relationship between the frame, base, first actuator, loader arm, second actuator, tool third actuator, bell crank, tilt member, bell crank, and leveling mechanism. Especially as it relates to the relationship between the frame, base, first actuator, loader arm, second actuator, tool third actuator, bell crank, tilt member, bell crank, and leveling mechanism.
The art of record fails to render obvious the claimed combination of: “A work vehicle, comprising: a mainframe, configured for standing operation and having at least one ground- engaging wheel; an articulation joint attached to the mainframe; a front assembly pivotally attached to the mainframe by the articulation joint and comprising: a frame having a plurality of ground-contacting drive members; a base, pivotally attached to the frame about a first axis, wherein the first axis is substantially horizontal; a loader arm, pivotally attached to the base about a second axis, wherein the second axis is substantially horizontal; a first actuator disposed between the frame and the base and directly attached to the frame and to the base; a second actuator configured to pivot the loader arm about the second axis; and a bell crank having a first end, a second end, and a center attachment point, and wherein: the bell crank is attached to the base at the center attachment point; and the bell crank is attached to the second actuator at the first end.”, as recited in Claim 13 specifically:
the structural and operative relationship between the mainframe, wheel, articulation joint, front assembly, frame, drive members, base, loader arm, first actuator, second actuator, bell crank, and center attachment point. Especially as it relates to the relationship between the mainframe, wheel, articulation joint, front assembly, frame, drive members, base, loader arm, first actuator, second actuator, bell crank, and center attachment point.
Claims 16, 17, 18, and 19 are allowed.
The art of record fails to render obvious the claimed combination of: “An articulated work vehicle comprising: a main frame; a first frame pivotally connected to the main frame about a substantially vertical axis; a base section pivotally connected to the first frame about a first substantially horizontal axis; a loader arm pivotally connected to the base section about a second substantially horizontal axis; a bucket pivotally connected to the loader arm about a third substantially horizontal axis; a first actuator directly attached to the first frame and configured to rotate the base section about the first substantially horizontal axis; a second actuator attached to the base section and configured to rotate the loader arm about the second substantially horizontal axis; a bell crank, having a first connection point, a second connection point, and a third connection point, wherein the second connection point is disposed between the first connection point and the third connection point; wherein: the second connection point is directly attached to the base section; and the third connection point is coaxial with an end of the second actuator; and a third actuator configured to rotate the bucket about the third substantially horizontal axis.”, as recited in Claim 16 specifically:
the structural and operative relationship between the main frame, first frame, first frame pivotal connection, base section, loader arm, bucket, first actuator, second actuator, bell crank, first connection point, second connection point, third connection point, and third actuator. Especially as it relates to the relationship between the main frame, first frame, first frame pivotal connection, base section, loader arm, bucket, first actuator, second actuator, bell crank, first connection point, second connection point, third connection point, and third actuator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and related arguments, see RCE, filed 2025/12/10, with respect to the Examiner’s Rejection of Claims 2, 3, 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner’s Rejection of Claims 2, 3, 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN P TIGHE whose telephone number is 571-272-4872. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 7:00-5:30 EST
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SAUL RODRIGUEZ can be reached on 571-272-7097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRENDAN P TIGHE/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652